In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
This is the last time i respond to you. I wish there was an ignore function on TL. Sadly you are trolling at exactly the level that won't get you banned, and probably will get people banned for getting angry at you. Thus i will ignore you from now on, even if you choose to directly insult me again.
Your positions are so clichée insane that i find it hard to believe that you are not trolling.
And I merely find your lack of ability to engage in productive dialogue extremely disheartening as it is quite typical of the modern liberal crowd. Ignore the messenger, when in doubt yell louder, appeal to a corrupt and ideological authority, and if that doesn't work cry racist/bigot/religious loon/right-wing nut job in that order. Whatever it takes to suppress the truth.
It may be a foreign concept to some, but I can assure you resorting to ad hominem in any argument, intelligent or otherwise, instantaneously shifts favor to the more reasonable.
On a completely unrelated note, anyone who doubts the effect of rapidly-increasing GHG emissions can simply refer to a time-lapse of Louisiana's coastline over the past fifty years. One would be hard-pressed to find a terrain more susceptible to rising tides than coastal wetlands; similarly one would be hard-pressed to find a more poignant case-study of the effects of human indifference toward "global warming."
Obviously the thread has a lot of questions, but Snowden answers quite a few of them, as do Laura and Glenn. I've mostly read through Snowden's answers for now, and I find them fascinating.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
You misunderstand the point of my post. I'm not saying what Goddard is claiming regarding the data being changed is wrong. From what I can tell we have an anonymous blogger claiming it's a nefarious conspiracy and the scientists who are not anonymous seem to have a rational explanation (it might not be scientifically rigorous).
So the skepticism is the same I would have if the foundation of my side of an issue was supported by an anonymous blogger and a poorly constructed wordpress site.
My post wasn't really aimed at that (If Goddard is right, more and more scientists will support his claims). My point was just that it's ridiculous that all those 'not scientists' are suddenly going to be able to tell the difference between falsifying/political manipulation of data and adjustments that reflect improvements of accuracy or recognition of discrepancies/accounting for differences in methods/locations.
Particularly when they were saying such ridiculous things not long ago (Inhofe being a prime example).
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
This is the last time i respond to you. I wish there was an ignore function on TL. Sadly you are trolling at exactly the level that won't get you banned, and probably will get people banned for getting angry at you. Thus i will ignore you from now on, even if you choose to directly insult me again.
Your positions are so clichée insane that i find it hard to believe that you are not trolling.
And I merely find your lack of ability to engage in productive dialogue extremely disheartening as it is quite typical of the modern liberal crowd. Ignore the messenger, when in doubt yell louder, appeal to a corrupt and ideological authority, and if that doesn't work cry racist/bigot/religious loon/right-wing nut job in that order. Whatever it takes to suppress the truth.
That cuts both ways. I could say exactly the same things about the "modern conservative crowd" except replace your last sentence with "bleeding heart/feminist/socialist nut job." Don't pretend like you, or conservatives, have a moral high ground in the current political climate. Everybody in politics ignores facts that don't support their agenda, everyone yells loud, and everyone likes to call names. It's the unfortunate reality of our extremely polarizing two party system.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
Reread the article and look at the referenced article as well. Again, the problem, as I stated before, is not that the raw data was adjusted. It's the fact that they replaced missing data from weather stations in the country with those from the city. I am sure even you understand the urban heat island effect and why this would be a less than scientifically sound way to adjust the temperature.
You guys want to debate the reputation of the blogger and ignore the facts. Besides being a strawman, you conveniently don't do this when someone posts something backed up by the NY Times or Al Jazeera America instances of which being merely posts above. All because one provides confirmation to your views, and one doesn't.
Two Bills Introduced in Congress to Legalize and Legitimize Marijuana on a Federal Level
Today, Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced two bills that together would legalize and tax marijuana at the federal level. Representative Polis’s legislation, H.R. 1013, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, removes marijuana from the schedule set by the Controlled Substances Act; transitions marijuana oversight from the jurisdiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and regulates marijuana like alcohol by inserting into the section of the U.S. Code governing “intoxicating liquors.” Representative Blumenauer’s legislation, H.R. 1014, the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act of 2015, creates a federal excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales and moves this quickly growing industry out of the shadows.
More than 213 million people live in a state or jurisdiction that allows the some form of legal use of marijuana. Twenty-three states currently allow for medical marijuana, while four states--Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska--and the District of Columbia recently legalized the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. Eleven additional states have passed laws allowing the use of low-THC forms of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions.
Following federal legalization, the Marijuana Tax Revenue Act would impose a federal excise tax on the sale of marijuana for non-medical purposes as well as apply an occupational tax for marijuana businesses. The bill would establish civil and criminal penalties for those who fail to comply, like those in place for the tobacco industry. The bill also requires the IRS to produce periodic studies of the marijuana industry and to issue recommendations to Congress. It phases in an excise tax on the sale by a producer (generally the grower) to the next stage of production (generally the processor creating the useable product). This tax is initially set at 10% and rises over time to 25% as the legal market displaces the black market. Medical marijuana is exempt from this tax.
The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act would remove marijuana from the schedule set by the Controlled Substances Act; transition marijuana oversight from the jurisdiction of the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and regulate marijuana like alcohol by inserting into the section of the U.S. Code that governs “intoxicating liquors.”
“Over the past year, Colorado has demonstrated that regulating marijuana like alcohol takes money away from criminals and cartels, grows our economy, and keeps marijuana out of the hands of children,” said Representative Polis. “While President Obama and the Justice Department have allowed the will of voters in states like Colorado and 22 other jurisdictions to move forward, small business owners, medical marijuana patients, and others who follow state laws still live with the fear that a new administration – or this one—could reverse course and turn them into criminals. It is time for us to replace the failed prohibition with a regulatory system that works and let states and municipalities decide for themselves if they want, or don’t want, to have legal marijuana within their borders.”
This is almost perfectly set up for republicans to come in with amendments designed to beef up DEA, and to distribute that tax revenue. It even has the built in cover of saying they just support local municipalities/states being able to make their own choices instead of an all powerful federal government coming in and dictating prohibition.
It also leaves Republicans in opposition to taking cannabis off schedule 1 without a leg to stand on.
On February 24 2015 06:17 always_winter wrote: It may be a foreign concept to some, but I can assure you resorting to ad hominem in any argument, intelligent or otherwise, instantaneously shifts favor to the more reasonable.
On a completely unrelated note, anyone who doubts the effect of rapidly-increasing GHG emissions can simply refer to a time-lapse of Louisiana's coastline over the past fifty years. One would be hard-pressed to find a terrain more susceptible to rising tides than coastal wetlands; similarly one would be hard-pressed to find a more poignant case-study of the effects of human indifference toward "global warming."
No one debates that climate changes. Of course it does. It has and will as long as the Earth is around. The question is whether man is having an adverse effect on the Earth, and what exactly is that effect. Your "evidence" provides nothing to help prove your case. You're so blinded by your ideology, you can't even see the real issue clearly.
The fact of the matter is, "man made climate change" scientist have yet to produce an accurate model of climate change. Every model produced in the past has been wrong, you keep tweaking it, and it is still proven wrong. You can't even falsify enough data fast enough to produce an accurate one. So, from what I can gather, your argument for man made climate change is thus:
We know man made activity is causing climate change even though we have failed to produce a model that accurately portrays this. We keep trying, but we still can't produce an accurate one, and every one we have made in the past was abysmally way off. This is despite all the preponderance of evidence we have that "supports" these models. So trust us. The models, that are created with "science" are wrong, but believe us when we say that man made global warming is real.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
Reread the article and look at the referenced article as well. Again, the problem, as I stated before, is not that the raw data was adjusted. It's the fact that they replaced missing data from weather stations in the country with those from the city. I am sure even you understand the urban heat island effect and why this would be a less than scientifically sound way to adjust the temperature.
You guys want to debate the reputation of the blogger and ignore the facts. Besides being a strawman, you conveniently don't do this when someone posts something backed up by the NY Times or Al Jazeera America instances of which being merely posts above. All because one provides confirmation to your views, and one doesn't.
The only two articles I see are the one you linked in the Daily Caller and the one linked from that to the Telegraph. Only Goddard mentions anything about using urban temperatures to fill missing data, but he unsurprisingly doesn't follow up with any real information.
Yes, I am aware of the urban heat island effect, I am a civil engineer. Thank you for the condescension, nonetheless. I'm debating the reputation of the blogger because he, or that article, haven't actually provided any facts, just claims. How often was the urban data used? Every other day, once a month, once a year? I work with local climate data on a regular basis and it is fairly common practice to fill missing data with nearby climate stations when that happens (which is rare).
If he's going to make the grand claim that the science behind climate change is a complete farce, I would hope for a little bit of information to back it up. Accusing them of adjusting for biases and filling missing data is not exactly earth-shattering.
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors.
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite.
You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
Not necessarily. It's possible, at least outside of politics, to imagine a plan that addresses global warming without harming the economy. Apply a modest carbon tax, reduce current subsidies and regulations aimed at fighting warming and use the proceeds to finance income tax cuts, value-added spending and deficit reduction. So long as the details work, we should end up with less carbon and more economic efficiency than we'd otherwise have.
Politically you'll get grumbling from both sides, and politicians could very well turn it into a boondoggle, but on it's face it's pretty rational.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
Reread the article and look at the referenced article as well. Again, the problem, as I stated before, is not that the raw data was adjusted. It's the fact that they replaced missing data from weather stations in the country with those from the city. I am sure even you understand the urban heat island effect and why this would be a less than scientifically sound way to adjust the temperature.
You guys want to debate the reputation of the blogger and ignore the facts. Besides being a strawman, you conveniently don't do this when someone posts something backed up by the NY Times or Al Jazeera America instances of which being merely posts above. All because one provides confirmation to your views, and one doesn't.
The only two articles I see are the one you linked in the Daily Caller and the one linked from that to the Telegraph. Only Goddard mentions anything about using urban temperatures to fill missing data, but he unsurprisingly doesn't follow up with any real information.
Yes, I am aware of the urban heat island effect, I am a civil engineer. Thank you for the condescension, nonetheless. I'm debating the reputation of the blogger because he, or that article, haven't actually provided any facts, just claims. How often was the urban data used? Every other day, once a month, once a year? I work with local climate data on a regular basis and it is fairly common practice to fill missing data with nearby climate stations when that happens (which is rare).
If he's going to make the grand claim that the science behind climate change is a complete farce, I would hope for a little bit of information to back it up. Accusing them of adjusting for biases and filling missing data is not exactly earth-shattering.
Condescension is free of charge for your lefties.
Also, on the article linked from the Telegraph, it would appear he cites Steven McIntyre, a statistician, as the source of his evidence of temperature infilling. Didn't take long to figure that out.
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors.
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite.
You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
Not necessarily. It's possible, at least outside of politics, to imagine a plan that addresses global warming without harming the economy. Apply a modest carbon tax, reduce current subsidies and regulations aimed at fighting warming and use the proceeds to finance income tax cuts, value-added spending and deficit reduction. So long as the details work, we should end up with less carbon and more economic efficiency than we'd otherwise have.
Politically you'll get grumbling from both sides, and politicians could very well turn it into a boondoggle, but on it's face it's pretty rational.
Not rational. Insane. Carbon tax will boost electricity costs, that will effect the poor disproportionately. So you will need, as you mentioned, to provide an offset. You call them tax cuts, but they aren't. You know was well as I, that they will be progressively applied, with the poor (whom don't pay income taxes) would get more than the wealthy. So even if it's benchmarked at the usage level of the poor too compensate them 100%, and not any more, then by extension anyone above that is less than compensated. This is a defacto tax increase on anyone not already receiving a government handout, and we don't need to go into how taxes have a detrimental effect on long term economic growth.
More regulation is the anathema of economic efficiency.
Uhm... A Carbon/Energy tax would be applied to consumption and with only a slight hint of brain you would get a "base level" which is basically "free" and tax more and more the more energy a person needs... Its with the utmost likeliness "fairer" than the general consumption tax on goods that exists pretty much all around the world.
On February 24 2015 07:56 Velr wrote: Uhm... A Carbon/Energy tax would be applied to consumption and with only a slight hint of brain you would get a "base level" which is basically "free" and tax more and more the more energy a person needs... Its with the utmost likeliness "fairer" than the general consumption tax on goods that exists pretty much all around the world.
Sure that is one way to do it. But with a slight hint of brain you would realize that your proposal reinforces my argument as the poorest are the most likely to be high energy consumers due to the lower levels of energy efficiencies of their homes and rentals. Therefore, some progressive form of tax is going to be mandatory to keep you libs from screaming about oppressing the poor on the backs of the rich. Which brings us full circle to my point.
But in fairness, your tax scheme would be bi-modal with the high points at each end. So you would hit the really rich and the really poor the hardest. Since the poorest get tax credits I'm sure, then what we really have is just another form of wealth redistribution.
So why don't you just come out and tell me what a carbon tax really is. And that is just another version of the same leftist wealth redistribution song you guys have been singing ever since Marx crawled out of the woodwork.
Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors.
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite.
You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
Not necessarily. It's possible, at least outside of politics, to imagine a plan that addresses global warming without harming the economy. Apply a modest carbon tax, reduce current subsidies and regulations aimed at fighting warming and use the proceeds to finance income tax cuts, value-added spending and deficit reduction. So long as the details work, we should end up with less carbon and more economic efficiency than we'd otherwise have.
Politically you'll get grumbling from both sides, and politicians could very well turn it into a boondoggle, but on it's face it's pretty rational.
Not rational. Insane. Carbon tax will boost electricity costs, that will effect the poor disproportionately. So you will need, as you mentioned, to provide an offset. You call them tax cuts, but they aren't. You know was well as I, that they will be progressively applied, with the poor (whom don't pay income taxes) would get more than the wealthy. So even if it's benchmarked at the usage level of the poor too compensate them 100%, and not any more, then by extension anyone above that is less than compensated. This is a defacto tax increase on anyone not already receiving a government handout, and we don't need to go into how taxes have a detrimental effect on long term economic growth.
More regulation is the anathema of economic efficiency.
You don't like regulation, yet you're favoring a system that involves more regulation, rather than less regulation. Here's how current tax incentives often look on the business side: + Show Spoiler +
Pretty cool, but not what I'd call efficient Also, when done at a homeowner level, the incentives have historically benefited wealthier households. And do I need to remind you about the EPA's recent CO2 regs??
You also seem to be arguing that consumption taxes are worse than income taxes. I'm not sure that's true, particularly in the US where we run a trade deficit. As for tax progressiveness, how the cuts are structured depends on who is in office, yes?
Edit: PS I love having you here. I've been telling these guys for years that I'm not a far right winger. Maybe now they'll believe me!
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
Reread the article and look at the referenced article as well. Again, the problem, as I stated before, is not that the raw data was adjusted. It's the fact that they replaced missing data from weather stations in the country with those from the city. I am sure even you understand the urban heat island effect and why this would be a less than scientifically sound way to adjust the temperature.
You guys want to debate the reputation of the blogger and ignore the facts. Besides being a strawman, you conveniently don't do this when someone posts something backed up by the NY Times or Al Jazeera America instances of which being merely posts above. All because one provides confirmation to your views, and one doesn't.
The only two articles I see are the one you linked in the Daily Caller and the one linked from that to the Telegraph. Only Goddard mentions anything about using urban temperatures to fill missing data, but he unsurprisingly doesn't follow up with any real information.
Yes, I am aware of the urban heat island effect, I am a civil engineer. Thank you for the condescension, nonetheless. I'm debating the reputation of the blogger because he, or that article, haven't actually provided any facts, just claims. How often was the urban data used? Every other day, once a month, once a year? I work with local climate data on a regular basis and it is fairly common practice to fill missing data with nearby climate stations when that happens (which is rare).
If he's going to make the grand claim that the science behind climate change is a complete farce, I would hope for a little bit of information to back it up. Accusing them of adjusting for biases and filling missing data is not exactly earth-shattering.
Condescension is free of charge for your lefties.
This thread will be a much happier place if it were bereft of condescension, freely given notwithstanding. If there's one thing that kills intelligent online discussion on politics, it's condescension. 'you righties' or 'you lefties' is a minor form, but fully blown condescension eventually leads to flinging insults of 'Obamabot' 'T-Bagger' or 'drink your kool-aid' drivel that is of no value to anyone.
Just want to point out that industry funding of public research is not uncommon or looked down on (at least in the community) at all. However failure to add proper acknowledgements to your papers is very suspect. This guy is very experienced, he did not forget, and deliberately hiding funding sources in order to make a political point is intellectually dishonest at best.
Industry funding of research is not the same as personally accepting money. It sounds like he might have done the latter, which is incredibly frowned about, but the media is so stupid about these things I can't tell from the article which of the two actually happened.
It seems his crime was merely lack of acknowledgement of receiving funding in certain instances. Just a typical smear article with just enough impropriety to slander the man. Notice how the article doesn't mention his research is faulty or incorrect. Nor than other scientist on the anti-prosperity side of the equation are guilty of actually altering data to suit the interests of their benefactors.
Are government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.
Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.
“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”
For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.
Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.
“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”
NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.
“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.
Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.
But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”
“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.
UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”
Republicans have made quite the point that they are NOT scientists. Pretty hilarious now they are going to peer review the science they repeatedly proclaim they don't understand.
Keep reaching. Last time I turned on CSPAN these hearings are populated by witnesses giving testimony...
No one is reaching. The point is they ignore the hearings where the scientists tell them about global warming, because they aren't scientists (they say things like "The arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what God is doing with the climate, is to me outrageous"). Then when the scientists tell them what they want to hear, suddenly they can just accept the science that shows what they want. It's so unbelievably transparent it's pathetic that people would fall for it.
Or the truth of the matter, that the global warming side is so rife with fraud nothing it says can be trusted. And in absence of good data, better to do nothing than ram through legislation that will tank the economy, or worse, just serve to enrich the liberal elite.
You're still ignoring the fact that your gods have been caught redhanded manipulating data to serve their money overlords.
Not necessarily. It's possible, at least outside of politics, to imagine a plan that addresses global warming without harming the economy. Apply a modest carbon tax, reduce current subsidies and regulations aimed at fighting warming and use the proceeds to finance income tax cuts, value-added spending and deficit reduction. So long as the details work, we should end up with less carbon and more economic efficiency than we'd otherwise have.
Politically you'll get grumbling from both sides, and politicians could very well turn it into a boondoggle, but on it's face it's pretty rational.
Not rational. Insane. Carbon tax will boost electricity costs, that will effect the poor disproportionately. So you will need, as you mentioned, to provide an offset. You call them tax cuts, but they aren't. You know was well as I, that they will be progressively applied, with the poor (whom don't pay income taxes) would get more than the wealthy. So even if it's benchmarked at the usage level of the poor too compensate them 100%, and not any more, then by extension anyone above that is less than compensated. This is a defacto tax increase on anyone not already receiving a government handout, and we don't need to go into how taxes have a detrimental effect on long term economic growth.
More regulation is the anathema of economic efficiency.
You don't like regulation, yet you're favoring a system that involves more regulation, rather than less regulation. Here's how current tax incentives often look on the business side: + Show Spoiler +
Pretty cool, but not what I'd call efficient Also, when done at a homeowner level, the incentives have historically benefited wealthier households. And do I need to remind you about the EPA's recent CO2 regs??
You also seem to be arguing that consumption taxes are worse than income taxes. I'm not sure that's true, particularly in the US where we run a trade deficit. As for tax progressiveness, how the cuts are structured depends on who is in office, yes?
Edit: PS I love having you here. I've been telling these guys for years that I'm not a far right winger. Maybe now they'll believe me!
Nah, you assume facts not in evidence. Just because I don't favor a worse solution, doesn't mean I support the current setup either.
Your diagram could describe most any private equity LBO, not just energy ones. Again, just because the alternative is worse, doesn't mean the current is good.
The incentives favor wealthier households (I am assuming you are talking about the energy efficiency tax credits, if not then this may not apply), only because they are usually educated enough to take advantage of them. The poor have more opportunity to take advantage, but less know how and/or motivation.
I would actually prefer the abolition of the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. I think, if you want the government to utilize tax policy to social engineer, that a consumption tax incentivizes much better behavior than an income tax. The libs would argue it has a disparate impact on the poor, and to the uneducated poor that is true. However, consumption tax incentivizes saving, and no group needs more incentive to save than the poor. I won't purport to have all of the details of a consumption tax figured out, but on a theoretical level, I like it much more than an income tax, especially a progressive one designed for wealth redistribution.
I am on the far right, even by American standards. It just shocks me how uptight the lefties get when they encounter someone that is on to their game.
On February 24 2015 05:02 OuchyDathurts wrote: I thought people were done with this caricature.
Yeah, i find it quite annoying just how disruptive a single crazy person/troll (These are pretty much indistinguishable on the internet) can be just by spewing out nonsense in such rapid succession that it is hard to disprove all of it at the same speed, simply because it takes a lot less time to come up with random shit than it takes to actually meticulously research that claim and why it is incorrect.
If someone like hannahbelle has been shown to spout utter nonsense every time she posts, it is probably a good idea to just ignore her instead of engaging her nonsense. Obviously you are never gonna convince her of anything, and it is obvious to any observer that nothing she says makes any sense. Thus, engaging her in debate is a waste of everyones time.
This may be hard to comprehend for your low level of critical thinking, so I will break it down in baby steps for you.
I don't ask you to debate me. I posted a news article, from a reputable source, reporting an event. If you want to debate the content of the report, by all means, do so. But don't do what GreenHorizon's did, and try to throw up a strawman and not discuss the content of the article at all.
Don't prove me wrong. Prove the article wrong. It's received far more views and has far more influence than my alleged "troll" posts ever will.
I just find it extremely disappointing that you people have received such sheltered educations that you are unable to fathom that some people think differently than you do.
I would hardly call that source reputable. Did you actually read and comprehend the article? This "egregious" altering of the data you keep referencing was to adjust for the fact that measurements started being taken in the morning instead of the afternoon. That's not unethical, it's called being scientific and adjusting the data to remove biases. Goddard's quote completely removes any sense of credibility he had: "RAW data from the 1920's shows cooling." Yeah, it's called raw data because it has absolutely no interpretation applied to it. Raw data is useless, it has to be processed before it means anything. And if halfway through the study period, measurements started being taken during a cooler part of the day, that's something that needs to be accounted for.
I'm not saying unethical practices don't occur on both sides of the ball here, but this "article" is complete crap. If this is all Goddard has for claiming the data was purposely manipulated to result in a specific outcome, he is full of shit.
Reread the article and look at the referenced article as well. Again, the problem, as I stated before, is not that the raw data was adjusted. It's the fact that they replaced missing data from weather stations in the country with those from the city. I am sure even you understand the urban heat island effect and why this would be a less than scientifically sound way to adjust the temperature.
You guys want to debate the reputation of the blogger and ignore the facts. Besides being a strawman, you conveniently don't do this when someone posts something backed up by the NY Times or Al Jazeera America instances of which being merely posts above. All because one provides confirmation to your views, and one doesn't.
The only two articles I see are the one you linked in the Daily Caller and the one linked from that to the Telegraph. Only Goddard mentions anything about using urban temperatures to fill missing data, but he unsurprisingly doesn't follow up with any real information.
Yes, I am aware of the urban heat island effect, I am a civil engineer. Thank you for the condescension, nonetheless. I'm debating the reputation of the blogger because he, or that article, haven't actually provided any facts, just claims. How often was the urban data used? Every other day, once a month, once a year? I work with local climate data on a regular basis and it is fairly common practice to fill missing data with nearby climate stations when that happens (which is rare).
If he's going to make the grand claim that the science behind climate change is a complete farce, I would hope for a little bit of information to back it up. Accusing them of adjusting for biases and filling missing data is not exactly earth-shattering.
Condescension is free of charge for your lefties.
This thread will be a much happier place if it were bereft of condescension, freely given notwithstanding. If there's one thing that kills intelligent online discussion on politics, it's condescension. 'you righties' or 'you lefties' is a minor form, but fully blown condescension eventually leads to flinging insults of 'Obamabot' 'T-Bagger' or 'drink your kool-aid' drivel that is of no value to anyone.
I don't disagree, but at the risk of sounding like my 12 and 10 year old kids arguing...they started it. I just oblige by playing along.
you also know you're on the wrong side of human rights when you can replace the words "LGBT" in your argument with "Black people/Jews/insertminorityhere" and the argument becomes one that was routinely used by bigots throughout history.
I substitute the word pedophile in there too. I'm just 10 years ahead of my time I guess.
But seriously, HB, are you just trolling or do you really not see the difference between pedophiles and gays?
Nice.
I leave the thread for a few days and come back to hannahbelle comparing gays to pedophiles.
I am actually not surprised by this. Either we're dealing with a master level troll or someone whose viewpoints are so absurd it's not even worth responding to.
Or maybe he's pointing out how the whole "substitute x for black people/jews/minority" thing is really stupid. You can practically substitute just about any group in for x.
Check out this social experiment:
if you didn't watch it, a guy wearing a T-shirt with a swastika on it walks through a gay pride parade. He does nothing but walk; speaks to no one. Barely even looks at anyone. And many paraders sneer and glare. Some shout insults. A few even follow him the entire way through the parade shouting at him.
Bigotry isn't unilateral. Just because you're pro LGBT or whatever doesn't mean you're some paragon of truth.
I assume you actually know how stupid it is, what you're trying. I didn't watch it. I just had to see his outfit. Let me briefly explain what this video shows: a person, wearing Bomberjacke und Springerstiefel (copy and paste to google) - an outfit well known, or actually almost mandatory in the neo-nazi/hooligan/ultra-scene. Number one. Second, he's not wearing a religious symbol. If you'd know what you're talking about (and you clearly don't in this case), you wouldn't say that, because what he has on his T-Shirt clearly is a Nazi-Swastika. Not a Hindu/Buddhism Swastika, easy to be distinguish by the fact that his swastika is angled at 45 degrees (religious ones rarely are, the ones you cited are not).
So you have a person completely dressed as a Neo-Nazi, a person glorifying/adoring/worshipping a group/an organisation who actively hunted, imprisoned, and murdered gay people walking in between exactly those. And you actually wonder why they react pissed off? Apart from the obvious fact that those symbols are not allowed in germany apart from a couple of exceptions (things with historical background, like fighterplanes, tanks etc in museums, or documentations about WW2 - educational things), and that he'd be arrested over here, it's mindboggling to me how a person dares to ask for understanding/tolerance towards a person which clearly is trying to provoke in the meanest way possible. Hell, even i would've gone after him, and i'm not even gay.
Sorry for the lengthy post just about that, but that was just dumb and didn't help "your case" in any way. It only shows that "anti-LGBT" here have no real arguments and try to make some out of thin air.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/flip.JPG)
Also, when done at a homeowner level, the incentives have historically benefited wealthier households. And do I need to remind you about the EPA's recent CO2 regs??
